Net Neutrality

Many people might not know what this is, or even why it's such a big deal. Well here is a simple unbiased explanation. Cable and telecom companies (these are the guys that provide you with a high speed connection) want to start charging companies like Google and Yahoo! for a priority spot in their sea of bandwith. They would charge these companies some unknown amount so that end users like you and me could enjoy their services in a more timely fashion then say a company who did not pay these fees and thus were not prioritized. This is the basic arguement, and though I have not put in every single detail I don't believe I have left anything out that changes it much. Many people are against this and have started a discussion on new neutrality. The reason this discussion is referred to net neutrality comes from the stance that these cable and telecom companies should be neutral in their offering of content and not make it a priority issue for services that are delivered today in a none prioritized manner. This is yet another example of an industry trying to take advantage of a situation that was not planned for in the business model AT THE EXPENSE of the end user. I have no problem with the telecoms wanting to make extra money off of some companies that use a good chunck of their bandwith. I don't think it's fair or right, but that is capitalism, if they can get the companies to pay so be it. But how is this newly added fee going to affect me and you, the end users? No one can say for sure, but I can't believe that we won't inccurr some added costs somewhere. You might be asking, "wait a minute, don't I already pay Timewarner (substitute name of your ISP here) for broadband access?" The answer is yes you do. You pay a cable or telecom company for broadband access so that you may access content, now they in turn want to charge the content providers that you are paying the ISP's to access to serve you that content at a favorable speed or transfer rate. The probelm lies in the analogy of biting the hand that feeds you. The broadband access would not support itself without the consumers to by it, and consumers wouldn't be so inclined to pay for access to this high speed web if their was no content to take advantage of a braodband connection. Yet in the wake of this partnership that has made everyone rich, cable and telecoms now call what they have been doing for these content providers "a free ride" saying that the investments they made to start and maintain these high speed connections need to be paid back somewhere and that companies who use it the most should be the one's to foot the bill. I guess I am glad that they did not push for the end users to pay for this, but appalled that they expect some type of restitution after we as end users already pay for their services. You can see why there is so much discussion, what do you think?

Interesting Article on Net Neutrality from the POV of the Cable companies.